The Art

[Petraio Prime]

erm you are aware that today sculpting, painting, sketching etc... .can all be automated - heck with some lego and a pen you can make a remote controled pencil sketching machine - hook that up to some automated software and away you go

Then it's not 'art'. Understand why?

Depends of course on the degree of automation involved of course, but at a basic level its understandable. However photography isn't automated when its done by a human controlling the camera - even with in camera processing and JPEG outputs there is still a significant amount of human involvement needed (Esp to make art).
Just because part of the process relies upon more advanced technology (and of course I include the fold film; glass slates etc... methods in this) than say other forms of art (though of course that is a fallacy in itself as there is a whole mass of technology behind brush production and paint creation for example) does not make it more or lesser than the others.

I am showing you what I mean:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...1mural-600.jpg

http://oxleylearning.org/germandicti.../sculpting.gif

http://www.sad74.k12.me.us:16080/dis...tery_Wheel.jpg

http://www.bsu.edu/web/bsjessie/glas...ss_blowing.jpg

What do these have in common?

 

[usayit]

You have an extraordinary propensity to ignore the point of the argument and bring up irrelevancies.

We have something in common then.

I still assert that your definition of art is not the only definition nor a required criteria for art. That still is the basis of your argument and still incorrect no matter how many times you repeat yourself.

 

[Petraio Prime]

You have an extraordinary propensity to ignore the point of the argument and bring up irrelevancies.

We have something in common then.

I still assert that your definition of art is not the only definition nor a required criteria for art. That still is the basis of your argument and still incorrect no matter how many times you repeat yourself.

I will make this the last reply to you, unless you answer that you understand:

Do you know what a necessary condition is, or not?

If yes, then do you understand that Janson's claim that to be art, something must be "at least something tangible made by human hands", is stating a necessary condition or not?

 

[Overread]

Then it's not 'art'. Understand why?

Depends of course on the degree of automation involved of course, but at a basic level its understandable. However photography isn't automated when its done by a human controlling the camera - even with in camera processing and JPEG outputs there is still a significant amount of human involvement needed (Esp to make art).
Just because part of the process relies upon more advanced technology (and of course I include the fold film; glass slates etc... methods in this) than say other forms of art (though of course that is a fallacy in itself as there is a whole mass of technology behind brush production and paint creation for example) does not make it more or lesser than the others.

I am showing you what I mean:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...1mural-600.jpg

http://oxleylearning.org/germandicti.../sculpting.gif

http://www.sad74.k12.me.us:16080/dis...tery_Wheel.jpg

http://www.bsu.edu/web/bsjessie/glas...ss_blowing.jpg

What do these have in common?

They all use tools to help them create and realise their art - rather like photographers
Extreme Conditions | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

or digital painters:
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uk2sPl_Z7ZU[/ame]
*ok that one is a copy but there are many others doing original work*

 

[Petraio Prime]

Depends of course on the degree of automation involved of course, but at a basic level its understandable. However photography isn't automated when its done by a human controlling the camera - even with in camera processing and JPEG outputs there is still a significant amount of human involvement needed (Esp to make art).
Just because part of the process relies upon more advanced technology (and of course I include the fold film; glass slates etc... methods in this) than say other forms of art (though of course that is a fallacy in itself as there is a whole mass of technology behind brush production and paint creation for example) does not make it more or lesser than the others.

I am showing you what I mean:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...1mural-600.jpg

http://oxleylearning.org/germandicti.../sculpting.gif

http://www.sad74.k12.me.us:16080/dis...tery_Wheel.jpg

http://www.bsu.edu/web/bsjessie/glas...ss_blowing.jpg

What do these have in common?

They all use tools to help them create and realise their art - rather like photographers

*ok that one is a copy but there are many others doing original work*

No, that's false. Do you understand why it's false?

 

[Overread]

nope tools are tools
unless its the mud/grime/paint stains?

 

[Petraio Prime]

nope tools are tools
unless its the mud/grime/paint stains?

If you took a piece of film or sensitized paper and took an LED light or something and traced it over the surface of the material, that would be 'art'.

A lens is not like a chisel or brush.

 

[usayit]

You have an extraordinary propensity to ignore the point of the argument and bring up irrelevancies.

We have something in common then.

I still assert that your definition of art is not the only definition nor a required criteria for art. That still is the basis of your argument and still incorrect no matter how many times you repeat yourself.

I will make this the last reply to you, unless you answer that you understand:

Do you know what a necessary condition is, or not?

If yes, then do you understand that Janson's claim that to be art, something must be "at least something tangible made by human hands", is stating a necessary condition or not?

You haven't answered a whole list of questions put forth by others (as well as me). There are many statements you have ignored at your leisure. Heck you still quote Janson which I have already proven numerous times his works Does Not Support Your Assertion. You claim that it is possible for mistakes and contradictions are possible yet fail to recognize that the one quote you latched on contradicts an ENTIRE chapter in the very book you reference.

The issue here is that your are linking your assertion that "tangible made by human hands" implies that photography is not "tangible" and not "made by human hands". You are flat wrong. The whole foundation of your argument is that there is one definition of art... the one you keep repeating. You are wrong. All I have to do prove you wrong is show another source differently.

Now I ask you, what is Scrutom's definition of art? Its not the same as the one you keep repeating and doesn't support your assertion even though YOU referenced him. I don't even think you've read his essay because you referenced him without knowing that he rejects photography as an art form for entirely different reasons than you. Just like I don't believe you read Janson works either.

(btw... I haven't read them either and make no claim to have)

Let me remind you:

Ok here is a refute. Art is subjective and subject to many definitions. You assert that there is only one definition.. You are wrong. I only need to show one example. According to Paul Anderson, in his book, The Fine Art of Photography, fine art is “any medium of expression which permits one person to convey to another an abstract idea of lofty emotion”. Why don't you give us Scrutom's definition of art, because I believe it is different too.

I keep poking holes into your argument because it is implying a rigid notion of art from which art itself (and widely accepted) as a subjective manner ... this is way too easy. For someone who implies a background in academia, you are coming off as simply stubborn .

 

[Petraio Prime]

We have something in common then.

I still assert that your definition of art is not the only definition nor a required criteria for art. That still is the basis of your argument and still incorrect no matter how many times you repeat yourself.

I will make this the last reply to you, unless you answer that you understand:

Do you know what a necessary condition is, or not?

If yes, then do you understand that Janson's claim that to be art, something must be "at least something tangible made by human hands", is stating a necessary condition or not?

You haven't answered a whole list of questions put forth by others (as well as me). There are many statements you have ignored at your leisure. Heck you still quote Janson which I have already proven numerous times his works Does Not Support Your Assertion. You claim that it is possible for mistakes and contradictions are possible yet fail to recognize that the one quote you latched on contradicts an ENTIRE chapter in the very book you reference.

The issue here is that your are linking your assertion that "tangible made by human hands" implies that photography is not "tangible" and not "made by human hands". You are flat wrong. The whole foundation of your argument is that there is one definition of art... the one you keep repeating. You are wrong. All I have to do prove you wrong is show another source differently.

Now I ask you, what is Scrutom's definition of art? Its not the same as the one you keep repeating and doesn't support your assertion even though YOU referenced him. I don't even think you've read his essay because you referenced him without knowing that he rejects photography as an art form for entirely different reasons than you. Just like I don't believe you read Janson works either.

(btw... I haven't read them either and make no claim to have)

Let me remind you:

Ok here is a refute. Art is subjective and subject to many definitions. You assert that there is only one definition.. You are wrong. I only need to show one example. According to Paul Anderson, in his book, The Fine Art of Photography, fine art is “any medium of expression which permits one person to convey to another an abstract idea of lofty emotion”. Why don't you give us Scrutom's definition of art, because I believe it is different too.

I keep poking holes into your argument because it is implying a rigid notion of art from which art itself (and widely accepted) as a subjective manner ... this is way too easy. For someone who implies a background in academia, you are coming off as simply stubborn .

I'll take that as "No, I don't understand what a necessary condition is".

Maybe you should just be honest and say so.

Good day to you.

 

[usayit]

A necessary condition of a statement must be satisfied for the statement to be true.

You failed to realize that it is the implications afterwards that I have a problem. Making neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for something to be classified as art.

Again.. you leisurely ignore mine and other's questions.. but expect me to respond to yours.

Good day to you. I've made my point by poking holes in your arguments from the very references you use. Next time, you should actually read those articles/essays/books before using them. Neither Janson, dictionary, nor Scrutom support.... the only thing left is you but you are not a credible resource.



not a credible resource but an interesting essay to read:
The Art of Photography

 

[Petraio Prime]

A necessary condition of a statement must be satisfied for the statement to be true.

You failed to realize that it is the implications afterwards that I have a problem. Making neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for something to be classified as art.

Again.. you leisurely ignore mine and other's questions.. but expect me to respond to yours.

Good day to you. I've made my point by poking holes in your arguments from the very references you use. Next time, you should actually read those articles/essays/books before using them.

not a credible resource but an interesting essay to read:
The Art of Photography

I picked what I thought was a useful statement for our purposes here. It establishes the foundation for my assertion that photography isn't art because it doesn't meet that necessary condition. Whatever else he may say may contradict that, perhaps because he wasn't thinking.

 

[Overread]

nope tools are tools
unless its the mud/grime/paint stains?

If you took a piece of film or sensitized paper and took an LED light or something and traced it over the surface of the material, that would be 'art'.

A lens is not like a chisel or brush.

But if I put glass between the LED and the film/paper/camera sensor it suddenly becomes not art? Of if I shift it from drawing with the LED itself to drawing upon a subject with a light and then capturing the reflected light?

 

[usayit]

Whatever else he may say may contradict that, perhaps because he wasn't thinking

Easy and ignorant, scapegoat of a statement to fall back on anything in a referenced material you don't agree with. No that isn't a sign of an intelligent person from academia. (also a recipe for taking things out of context) Really.. you should use that as a disclaimer. I take it you didn't read any of the material then... If you were a student of mine, I would have failed you.

Good day to you... you are not worthy of my attention.

 

[Petraio Prime]

nope tools are tools
unless its the mud/grime/paint stains?

If you took a piece of film or sensitized paper and took an LED light or something and traced it over the surface of the material, that would be 'art'.

A lens is not like a chisel or brush.

But if I put glass between the LED and the film/paper/camera sensor it suddenly becomes not art? Of if I shift it from drawing with the LED itself to drawing upon a subject with a light and then capturing the reflected light?

If you shine an LED on the paper or film it's not a lens making an image of something else.

 

[Infidel]

Petraio Prime, it is my opinion that you are not willing to accept any evidence or authority that would cause you to reject your original assertion that art must be tangible and made by hand; not even the one you originally cited.

As usayit has pointed out several times, you repeatedly appeal to one statement from one particular authority, whilst discrediting the same authority's other statements. In other words, it seems to me that you have chosen to cite a particular statement as credible on the basis of its author's credibility. Yet you undermine the same author's credibility on the basis of his other statements, which you happen to disagree with. You have effectively defeated yourself, but fail to recognize it.

Clearly someone possessing sophisticated debate skills would understand the grave implications of this type of contradiction to one's own line of reasoning.